Video and response

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Interesting talk ... I think it's an apt description of the basic differences between conservative and liberal tendencies, but ... I don't know, for me, it still has the air of an illusion. Like the Bohr's model of the atom. It seems to work. It is confirmed by every imaginable data. But it must be fundamentally imprecise.

Just a feeling.

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm suspicious of self-reporting in this area. (Like, it's possible that "open to new experience" correlates with "liberal" in reporting, but the same person in another mood or at another time of life could also say that they are "less open" and "conservative.") I think we're all mostly mixes. So the terms correlate, not the people. Perhaps.

I'm a little bit reminded of the idea (from quantum physics) that the universe only organizes itself in observed moments. And language is maybe the worst tool for seeing what people really think in those observed moments, right? How many secret conservatives have a liberal mouth? And vice-versa? To me, the graphs just prove that on the whole people around the globe have been well-educated (starting with the Assembly of the French Revolution I guess) about the terms "right" and "left," to the point that the meanings are partially internalized.

So when they self-report lefty feelings, they know those feelings are generally referred to as "left" or "liberal" or whatever equivalent in a foreign language. And vice-versa.

My view on the pendulum swings in the politics of nations (getting outside the personal now), and on the global Left and Right (from fascist dictatorships to communist dictatorships and everything in between) is that, as the speaker says, both sides have moral compasses related to survival. And both kinds of people have practical ethical standards as well ...

.. But ... in practice, right-wing politics as an organizing gesture is unethical and less honest.

Or rather, lacking in ethics. (I think this is what is referred to when the speaker says that conservatives are more willing to fail some individuals "at the bottom" to maintain the order.) That is to say, the organized Right everywhere reserves the right to define Truth vis-a-vis the individual independent of expressed values.

(An example would be the "Life" issues of abortion/ war/ euthanasia. A conservative person means it sincerely when they say they favor a "culture of life," and oppose killing in general, but on some level their organized movement reserves the right to define the boundaries vis-a-vis the individual. Therefore, you as an individual or family can't be allowed to "sense" for yourself during which month an abortion is still appropriate, or when you're in too much pain to go on living.)

I agree that it's a useful element of conservatism in some regards. One of the problems with solving the health care crisis is that we have difficulties drawing precise boundaries around what society is willing to pay for. (What constitutes "basic care," given that we can't afford all procedures for all persons?) What does one have a "right" to? I actually think that conservatives could help us get through the health care issue better than liberals if they hadn't backed themselves into a corner with the privatized insurance system. Because a conservative would be more able to assign a boundary to minimum care without trying to give every thing to every person (financially impossible). Or to construct a tiered system of public-and-private, which is what they really have in other countries with "socialized medicine" anyway. (Unless you are in a communist dictatorship ... but probably even then there is private care outside the legal framework.)

I think this is why there is something of a rift between the official discourse on the right and what is actually desired. And they are un-ethical (though not immoral) because they can live with that. (Big examples include economic policy and military policy ... for example the economic growth trickle-down notion that "a high tide raises all ships," which everyone knows is not true, because it also floods some houses, so to speak. Or the notion of "personal choice" in social security/ retirement as the best way to achieve maximum benefit.)

Another example: What does it mean to be "against abortion except in cases of rape or incest"? The idea is meaningless IF it is based on a sanctity-of-life criterion that also prohibits euthanasia (of Terry Schiavo, for example). In this regard, I think I would actually support the view of Sarah Palin as more internally consistent. (She's against all abortion, including for rape victims, a view which she is very reviled for.) If it's an absolute wrong to kill a fetus, then it's always morally wrong, .... maybe except in the case of the Hobson's choice where between mother's life and baby's life you can only save one. Which would be a kind of Catch-22 where you can't apply an ethic.

Anyway, what I mean to say is that though both Right and Left are moral on some level, and both are needed to govern us, the Right -- when manifested in politics -- is inherently less transparent (or externally honest) ... at least in the post-Enlightenment era (where on some level a large number of the population is presumed to be literate enough to be considered a citizen and participate in the political process... more in number with time, of course).

To maintain order (which is a good, values-wise) the "man behind the curtain" from the 'Wizard of Oz' cannot be completely transparent or reveal himself at all times.

I think this is what makes a transparent Right-wing writer or thinker (one who is totally honest with the reader about the human realities and costs of what he proposes) something of an outlier and very compelling. A very Left-wing writer, on the other hand, is usually heart-on-sleeve by definition. So it's not surprising when they are transparent and scrutable in their views. Nor is it surprising that it's easier to catch them in a lie or being insincere.

EXAMPLE. Pro-choicers are usually open about admitting their moral qualms -- or lack of moral qualms -- with abortion. They don't need to draw an absolute line in the sand in order to stand together on the issue. So people who are just plain un-bothered by terminating a zygote co-mingle openly with those who hate the idea of abortion but see no benefit in criminalizing it. By contrast, a pro-lifer can't actually say that their willing to kill the rape child, though most seemingly are. Their position has more subtext and less transparency. A pro-lifer who COULD actually admit that -- "I'm willing to let the children of rape die but not other children" -- or that could take the Palin position -- "No abortion for rape victims, no exceptions -- becomes extremely compelling. Their honestly and transparency is more notable.

You can see the difference in some Democratic politicians (Gore, Kerry, T. Kennedy) as a product of age. As they feel more unburdened by additional ambitions and constraints of realpolitik, they get more honest ... and much more personal. And then transparency correlates with movement leftward.

Maybe the opposite example would be someone who converts to being a "born-again," where it seems somehow that their personal views become entirely subsumed in the ideology and thus a little inscrutable. Secrecy correlates with movement rightward.

Anyway, transparency/honesty in a governing program is not always a good thing. A parent who reveals *everything* to his/her child is perhaps a good parent, but will have some trouble with order. But I think transparency is mostly good, which is why I'm mostly left.

Anyhoo. Conclusion. The moral right-wing (as organized groups) tells more lies than the moral left-wing (though both lie). This is because modern politics includes the notion of universal suffrage & participation. Otherwise, there would be no need to misrepresent moral principles in the smoke-filled room or in the king's chambers.

I think this actually does translate into more lying about Obama (or Kerry) than about McCain (or Bush). Because, for the right winger, the individual truth is bypassed somewhat. Obama is not Obama but rather The-World-as-it-would-be-with-Obama-as-prez. This is very clear with the Swift Boat issue. Clearly Kerry didn't betray his fellow soldiers, and probably most
people understand that on some level, but there's a subtext and a translucent quality to the attack: The-World-as-it-would be-with-Kerry-as-prez *would* betray soldiers, it is claimed.

So the Democrats go around actually trying to show that McCain the person or Bush the person makes lousier decisions or has lousier views or would be a lousier prez. Whereas the Republicans do they same thing ("dangerously inexperienced") with the unspoken subtext that they are not really talking about the person. This is what allows Republican voters, I think, to forgive untruths.

(oh, and I'm talking only about true believers, not people who choose a candidate as the lesser of 2 evils with absolutely no conviction)